- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 10:14:18 +0200
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
If that is our opinion then we should ask for the conformance page to be changed so that you are allowed make a markup conformance logo. At the moment using a markup logo is against our "rules". But the other side of the coin, is that I did not make a "perfect" CSS logo. It is not as good in some browsers (I tested it on the new IS and NS, but on other ones it will not be the same). I am not going to make one in SVG as I can not expect anyone to download a viewer to see a small logo. So, unless someone else can to do it better (which of course there is)- are the W3C prepared to do what we are asking of everyone else - to sometimes compromise on graphics for the sake of accessibility. (my logo is still up at globalformats.com , but I will have to take it off) -----Original Message----- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com> To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>; WAI <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Date: Saturday, December 30, 2000 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Conformance Logo in Markup >> > Information about the icons and how to insert them in >> > pages is available at [WCAG-ICONS]. >> >> If we come up with a good logo that is using mark up, we >> violate the criteria for conformance claim. > >Nope, because *our* logos conform to both Form1 and the WCAG guidelines:- >[[[ >Form 1: Specify: >The guidelines title: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" >The guidelines URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505 >The conformance level satisfied: "A", "Double-A", or "Triple-A". >The scope covered by the claim (e.g., page, site, or defined portion of a >site.). >]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/ > >So I reckon as our logos are more WCAG compliant than the WCAG logos >themselves, we may as well use them (and legally so). Also, I suppose we >could ask the editors of the [WCAG-ICONS] document to add our "good markup >logo(s)" is they think it is appropriate. (Wendy/Gregg/Ian???) > >That is, if there are no qualms about the accessibility of our efforts over >that of the text-in-images ones? > >Kindest Regards, >Sean B. Palmer >http://infomesh.net/sbp/ >"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics." > - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07. > >
Received on Sunday, 31 December 2000 03:13:55 UTC